DEBATE: Unit Sizes for HOI 2

[unmerged(6780)]

Leave it to Silver Dragon to take a simple idea and turn into a mathematics thesis.



That doesn't nessarily invalidate my argument. We don't have to mess with assistant division/corps/army commanders, XO's or military staffs. We can replace a leader pretty much anytime, anywhere without penality (what about an org hit when reassigning commanders, like the rebasing penality?). So with Von Paulus, he would either suffer a penality for commanding too many battalions, or you would replace him with a different general. And I'm not sure I'd use the command bonus/penality outside of the division. I'd have the divisional commander assignable right on the template screen. I'd also add a "re-assign" button next to the "promote" button. Click on it and a generic general takes over and the "named" general goes back in the pool. I seem to have wandered off topic - back to the skill level debate! At best we are talking about a regiment sized bonus at skill level 5 (using your skill level 2 base). I'd also add battalions at each divisional signal tech and each HQ tech. I'm not sure which other techs I add one with. Ideas?

Why add battalions with increasing signal or HQ tech? What HQ techs are you referring to, btw? As for other techs, CORE does a good job with some of these, namely the ind inf tank battalion and ind hvy tank battalion, and I think that's the route to follow. I don't think there should be too many additional battalions added by research. We should be able to attach, say up to 4 battalions without penalty (other than the increased build cost) during constructiuon or as part of an upgrade, but outside of that, and possibly additions related to commander skill levels, tech and doctrine shouldn't really add much in the way of actual battalions. Instead, I think a lot of that can be abstracted in the stats and/or org increases.

 

[jpd]

Why add battalions with increasing signal or HQ tech? What HQ techs are you referring to, btw? As for other techs, CORE does a good job with some of these, namely the ind inf tank battalion and ind hvy tank battalion, and I think that's the route to follow. I don't think there should be too many additional battalions added by research. We should be able to attach, say up to 4 battalions without penalty (other than the increased build cost) during constructiuon or as part of an upgrade, but outside of that, and possibly additions related to commander skill levels, tech and doctrine shouldn't really add much in the way of actual battalions. Instead, I think a lot of that can be abstracted in the stats and/or org increases.

I would even go one step further. I would say to take the total size of an average division (soldier wise) and divide that by the size of the basic build unit (also soldier wise). That gives you the number of slots in a division template. And then add a few extra for overstrenghing purposes, like the heavy tank batallions of the Germans, but don't let that depend on tech or something else. After all, a division is nothing more than an administrative unit, just as a brigade, regiment or batallion. The only diference is, in military terms, is that a division is a complete mini army in it's own right, with all of the support attached as organic units.

There are, of course, exceptions to this generic concept, like the para's, but those can be easily modelled by not attaching heavy tanks, heavy field art, etc. In as sence, a modern army's division is not unlike the Roman legion

About attaching special purpose battalions. Those were assigned, btw., by battlefield necessity, not based on the commander's skill. Basically, every German division commander was deamed competent enough by the High Command.

Let it be upto the player (or AI profile) on how many of those slots will be filled up to define an actual division. If both build time and cost increase with more units added, then I doubt that any competent player would fill each division to it's max. At least I wouldn't . I would prefer more, but smaller divisions of fewer ones that are filled to the max. Gives more flexibility that way.

Jan Peter

 

[unmerged(16440)]

Why add battalions with increasing signal or HQ tech? What HQ techs are you referring to, btw? As for other techs, CORE does a good job with some of these, namely the ind inf tank battalion and ind hvy tank battalion, and I think that's the route to follow. I don't think there should be too many additional battalions added by research. We should be able to attach, say up to 4 battalions without penalty (other than the increased build cost) during constructiuon or as part of an upgrade, but outside of that, and possibly additions related to commander skill levels, tech and doctrine shouldn't really add much in the way of actual battalions. Instead, I think a lot of that can be abstracted in the stats and/or org increases.

The divisional signal techs and the HQ techs (motorized, mechanized & helo) should increase the command ability of a general. Remember, the point of all this is to somehow accurately model the size of divisions and their attachments. Using the 1st Infantry Division stats, even if we assume that all of the attachments that didn't come from the 3rd Armored Division were from the corps or army HQs, that still leaves 8 battalions. I don't think an org increase would match two reinforced regiments worth of combat power.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

I would even go one step further. I would say to take the total size of an average division (soldier wise) and divide that by the size of the basic build unit (also soldier wise). That gives you the number of slots in a division template. And then add a few extra for overstrenghing purposes, like the heavy tank batallions of the Germans, but don't let that depend on tech or something else. After all, a division is nothing more than an administrative unit, just as a brigade, regiment or batallion. The only diference is, in military terms, is that a division is a complete mini army in it's own right, with all of the support attached as organic units.

There are, of course, exceptions to this generic concept, like the para's, but those can be easily modelled by not attaching heavy tanks, heavy field art, etc. In as sence, a modern army's division is not unlike the Roman legion

About attaching special purpose battalions. Those were assigned, btw., by battlefield necessity, not based on the commander's skill. Basically, every German division commander was deamed competent enough by the High Command.

Let it be upto the player (or AI profile) on how many of those slots will be filled up to define an actual division. If both build time and cost increase with more units added, then I doubt that any competent player would fill each division to it's max. At least I wouldn't . I would prefer more, but smaller divisions of fewer ones that are filled to the max. Gives more flexibility that way.

Jan Peter

If we wanted to build units for a fantasy game, that might work. Our problem is that if we want to have something approaching historical accuracy, we have to go by what existed. We know how many battalions made up a division, or brigade, or regiment in most of the militaries of the day. Where we're bogging down is in dealing with the attached non-line combat battalions and how to handle them, as well as how to implement reinforcing a division with extra battalions.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

The divisional signal techs and the HQ techs (motorized, mechanized & helo) should increase the command ability of a general. Remember, the point of all this is to somehow accurately model the size of divisions and their attachments. Using the 1st Infantry Division stats, even if we assume that all of the attachments that didn't come from the 3rd Armored Division were from the corps or army HQs, that still leaves 8 battalions. I don't think an org increase would match two reinforced regiments worth of combat power.

Ah, wasn't sure if the HQ techs you were referring to were the doctrines or something else that I'd forgotten about I can see your argument; it's basically the other side of the coin that advocates using stat and org increases to model the same thing. It would certainly be workable under any template system. However, we also have to remember that we can't use one or two examples and model a system after that, we have to come up with something that will serve to produce, more often then not, conditions as they existed. If we allow divisions to be reinforced to the point that US 1st Div is reinforced to in your example, we'll have uber-divisions wandering around the map as a matter of course, players being players. The same thing would happen if we allowed SilverDragon's 20-battalion template. I really would like to be able to allow at-will attachments, but I'd want to see a rather severe cap put on the number of battalions one could add to a division.

 

[unmerged(16440)]

Uber-divisions probably wouldn't occur as often as you think. If the number and type of battalions are used to compute IC and build time, how many nations could afford to spend 30-35 IC for a year to build one division? Using the 1st ID as an example, you'd be building a leg infantry division plus half an armored division. That would work out to something like another 150 days and 15-20 IC. Expensive. Of course, I only have information on American forces. What were Commonwealth forces like? Is the uber-division a uniquely American creation? Will naval warfare be "fixed", so that naval construction becomes a necessity? Air warfare? All these things will impact the economic viability of the uber-division, so their frequency is nearly impossible to predict.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Uber-divisions probably wouldn't occur as often as you think. If the number and type of battalions are used to compute IC and build time, how many nations could afford to spend 30-35 IC for a year to build one division? Using the 1st ID as an example, you'd be building a leg infantry division plus half an armored division. That would work out to something like another 150 days and 15-20 IC. Expensive. Of course, I only have information on American forces. What were Commonwealth forces like? Is the uber-division a uniquely American creation? Will naval warfare be "fixed", so that naval construction becomes a necessity? Air warfare? All these things will impact the economic viability of the uber-division, so their frequency is nearly impossible to predict.

We have to look at not just initial production, but later augmentation, as well. Also being discussed is a feature allowing battalions to be withdrawn and added to existing divisions, thus creating a pool of battalions. I think the law of memory space applies; namely that that amount of informaiton stored on any given memory device will expand to the maximum allowed. I can remmeber when I got my first 20 meg HD and though I'd never be able to fill it all

The problem here is that the various nations had widely differing configurations over the years. The US, for example, even had the benefit of watching what worked and what didn't from observing what went on in Europe from '39-'41. I know the Canadian OOB was a fairly bland, standard 3 brigade, 4 bttn/bde structure with the standard amount of support units. However, we did make special augmentations for certain operations, the Dieppe raid being a prime example.

I'm not against augmenting divisions, I guess what's got my dander up is the huge amount of slots folks want to allow for augmentation. I think that any system we come up with should be a good average system; if it means we can't replicate some of the truly huge division reinforcements that occured, I'm willing to live with that as long as the overall result is one that simulates the majority of what actually went on.

 

[Ape]

Nitpick: Its Friedrich Paulus, not Friedrich von Paulus, he was not a nobleman, and becoming a German Fieldmarschall didnt make you a nobleman, nor did it add a von into the name. It was correct in the earlier versions of HoI, but someone added a von into Paulus name in one of the later patches. Link

 

[jpd]

The problem here is that the various nations had widely differing configurations over the years. The US, for example, even had the benefit of watching what worked and what didn't from observing what went on in Europe from '39-'41. I know the Canadian OOB was a fairly bland, standard 3 brigade, 4 bttn/bde structure with the standard amount of support units. However, we did make special augmentations for certain operations, the Dieppe raid being a prime example.

That's certainly true. And in fact, the Germans did exactly the opposite in the war. They gradually reduced the number of units that comprised a division, in order to keep the number of fielded division up. The main exception was the Waffen SS, but that organisation fell outside the direct control of the Wehrmacht, although they fought alongside on many fronts.

I'm not against augmenting divisions, I guess what's got my dander up is the huge amount of slots folks want to allow for augmentation. I think that any system we come up with should be a good average system; if it means we can't replicate some of the truly huge division reinforcements that occured, I'm willing to live with that as long as the overall result is one that simulates the majority of what actually went on.

Well, here is a thought. Why not handle the divisions with no more than a slightly above average number of unit slots, so you cannot go berserk in creating ahistorically large divisions, but reserve a few slots on the corpse level for attaching a few batallions/regiments/brigades directly for bolstering the corpse, without the need to attach them to divisions inside the corpse.

It would allow you to model history reasonably accurate (after all, a lot of special attachments were IRL to the corpse level, not individual division level), and at the same time give you, as a player, a cleaner interface. You don't need to drill down into each division to attach brigades or to find an attached brigade again.

Jan Peter

 

[unmerged(16440)]

Would that mean that there would be different types of corps HQs? Or would a corps HQ be like a division template, but with only 4 or 5 slots and every division within the corps gets the bonus of these battalions?

And I hate attaching things to a corpse - very messy.

 

[jpd]

Not in my perspective. Any formation with more than one division is automatically a corpse, much like it functions right now. And yes, a corpse would get a limited amount of batallion slots, where you put those batallions.

Heck, you can even simplify this further. Any formation, even if it's only one division, could be considered a corpse. When you do that, there is no longer any need to provide extra slots in the division (template). Handle any attachments generically on the corpse level.

And for the combat enhancement. I presume that right now all the divisions in a corpse are aggregated to get the overall firepower of that corpse during combat. Just add the corpse attached battalion values to those aggregated values. It's not really that messy

Jan Peter

 

[Thelamon]

1. I think Brigades should be the smallest unit in the Game.

2. To reduce micromanagement Brigades should be permanently assigned to a specific Division.

3. (by doing this there would be no need for individual Commanders for Brigades - Division is the lowest assignement for Generals (as it is in HoI I)

4. Divisions should have a max/min requirement for Brigades in order to be formed.

5. If a Divison loses 2/3 of its Brigades it is dissolved in to one remaining Brigade which can than be assigned to another Division.

6. Brigades get a severe penalty if used more than two provinces away from their divisional HQ Brigade (i.e. there needs to be one Brigade which is the "nucleus" of the Division)

7. In order to use the strategic depth that the introduction of brigades offer for HoI II the map needs to get smaller provinces (like Victoria - or even smaller)

8. Marine and Paratrooper brigades should be "autonomous" units - i.E. no penalty if used away from Division HQ
(this would allow for a more historic use of Paras and Marines)

 

[unmerged(6780)]

1. I think Brigades should be the smallest unit in the Game.

2. To reduce micromanagement Brigades should be permanently assigned to a specific Division.

3. (by doing this there would be no need for individual Commanders for Brigades - Division is the lowest assignement for Generals (as it is in HoI I)

4. Divisions should have a max/min requirement for Brigades in order to be formed.

5. If a Divison loses 2/3 of its Brigades it is dissolved in to one remaining Brigade which can than be assigned to another Division.

6. Brigades get a severe penalty if used more than two provinces away from their divisional HQ Brigade (i.e. there needs to be one Brigade which is the "nucleus" of the Division)

7. In order to use the strategic depth that the introduction of brigades offer for HoI II the map needs to get smaller provinces (like Victoria - or even smaller)

8. Marine and Paratrooper brigades should be "autonomous" units - i.E. no penalty if used away from Division HQ
(this would allow for a more historic use of Paras and Marines)

Using brigades as the default unit for regular army troops would be going down a level too far. That's why I've said I'd like to see the unit scale be division and regiment/brigade, meaning that the vast majority of units should be divisions (the regular troops) and the specialist units be in brigade/regiment strength, exactly as you suggest for paras and marines (I hadn't realized exactly why I wanted paras and marines to be in brigades until I read your post and went 'Aha! That's the ticket!').

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Corps HQs and attachments

I'm against corps HQs (or any other HQ for that matter) from having units of their own. I prefer to abstract corps and army-level assets. My preferred solution to how many battalions to attach would be to allow for up to 4 battalions to be attached, bringing the max total of any division up to 16, without requiring any extra command ability or HQ or techs. I'd also really prefer not to have commander skill levels come into determining if any extra battalions can be attached, but I'm willing to live with some sort of extra attachments being granted by high skill levels.

 

[CommanderCody]

Well, here is a thought. Why not handle the divisions with no more than a slightly above average number of unit slots, so you cannot go berserk in creating ahistorically large divisions, but reserve a few slots on the corpse level for attaching a few batallions/regiments/brigades directly for bolstering the corpse, without the need to attach them to divisions inside the corpse.

Jan Peter - This is pretty much what I said earlier. Thanks for the affirmation. We need to keep this simple. If we have corps units on the map with fixed battalions built in and X number of divisions assigned it'll keep things much simpler. What specific battalions are attached to what specific division is a level that's unnecessary for this game and would bog things down. With the exception of islands and quiet fronts I envision players moving corps-sized units around the battlefied. With the scale as is, you wouldn't want to break those corps units down very often.

Also, major generals could lead corps just fine (Patton in charge of II Corps for example), as lt. generals led armies. However, in this game it might be wise to keep it as MAJ GEN - division, LT GEN - corps, etc.

I still like factories and the ability to target them them in air raids, which is a cool feature of War in Europe and War in Russia. I don't see them adding much complexity. We could remove complexity and clicking by automating replacements ("reinforcements" in HOI terms) at the army level (you'd set the level up to 100%).

Anyway, are we beating a corpse here? Does anyone know if Paradox is even contemplating HOI2?

CC

 

[unmerged(11819)]

"Anyway, are we beating a corpse here? Does anyone know if Paradox is even contemplating HOI2? "

We have to have our dreams...

 

[unmerged(18797)]

Also, major generals could lead corps just fine (Patton in charge of II Corps for example), as lt. generals led armies. However, in this game it might be wise to keep it as MAJ GEN - division, LT GEN - corps, etc.



CC

Patton is general in HoI.Also, historically(usually, not always) brigadier generals commanded divisions, major generals corps(3 divisions) etc.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

Yes, well, I'd not want to zoom in for tactical battles. I'd prefer a single map of hexes. perhaps in the 20-30 miles/hex range.

hey ! - there seems to be some kind of compromise at the end of the of the road


As I posted before the smallest province (in HOI) should have at least 10x10 hexes - with your suggested 20-30 miles/hex the size of the smallest province would be 200x200 miles - would fit for the most actual provinces (besides some islands, luxembourg and gibraltar)

I personally would prefer ~5 miles / hex


so let's meet at 10-15 miles / hex (at least ART could have some kind of range attack with this) - means a 10x10 hexes provinces would have the size of 100x100 miles.

If you could zoom in this map - don't know but some kind of zoom between world size map and province scale would be necessary (btw. there is already a zoom in HOI)


...but would provinces still make sense if they consist of hexes ?


I think yes !

...cause you could send a stack of divisions in a province and have the RISC/autofight option to take the province (like in HOI)

...or you could use your division sub-units and conquer the province hex by hex manually !

.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Patton is general in HoI.Also, historically(usually, not always) brigadier generals commanded divisions, major generals corps(3 divisions) etc.

That is totally incorrect. A Brigadier General commanded a Brigade, a Major General commanded a division, Lt Gen a corps, at least in armies drawing on the UK tradition.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

hey ! - there seems to be some kind of compromise at the end of the of the road


As I posted before the smallest province (in HOI) should have at least 10x10 hexes - with your suggested 20-30 miles/hex the size of the smallest province would be 200x200 miles - would fit for the most actual provinces (besides some islands, luxembourg and gibraltar)

I personally would prefer ~5 miles / hex


so let's meet at 10-15 miles / hex (at least ART could have some kind of range attack with this) - means a 10x10 hexes provinces would have the size of 100x100 miles.

If you could zoom in this map - don't know but some kind of zoom between world size map and province scale would be necessary (btw. there is already a zoom in HOI)


...but would provinces still make sense if they consist of hexes ?


I think yes !

...cause you could send a stack of divisions in a province and have the RISC/autofight option to take the province (like in HOI)

...or you could use your division sub-units and conquer the province hex by hex manually !

.

If the map became a hex map, then provinces would be abolished, since taking the hexes where the cities and factories and resources are located would accomplish the same thing that taking a provinces does in area movement.

I'm still totally against any form of tactical combat for a game of this size. 20-30 miles/hex will result in a HUGE map; any lesser scale would simply be too great. Having zoomable tactical maps (like Imperium, for example) would most likely not appeal, as the programmers would either have to draw up maps for every province or have gamers settle for a few generic battle maps.